Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Eleven Years Later, 9/11 Truthers Find Ways to Look Even More Ridiculous

Eleven years ago today, I was on sabbatical at the University of Arizona and listening to NPR when I heard the shocking news that the United States had been attacked by terrorists. Most of us quickly suspected Muslim religious extremists were the perpetrators, and we weren't wrong. My colleagues and I speculated that, despite the evidence, conspiracy theorists would quickly find some other group to blame: the CIA, Mossad, Bush, etc., and we weren't wrong either. Soon there were dozens of false claims circulating: that hundreds of Jews had been warned before the attack; that Larry Silverstein, owner of WTC 7, had given the order for controlled demolition of the building; and so forth. Only crackpots, we thought, would subscribe to these nutty claims.

Nowadays, with extensive documentation of the role of Osama bin Laden and his henchmen in the attack, such as Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower, few rational people doubt the generally-accepted account of 9/11. Yet the truther movement lives on, although it has become more and more marginalized. They are reduced to creating self-appointed "expert panels" consisting of physical therapists, actors, and religious studies professors, that do "investigations" whose loony conclusions are pre-ordained.

The really sad thing is that these folks, with their zeal, could have actually done something useful about the real abuses of Bush and Obama: Guantanamo Bay, illegal dententions, the expansion of the surveillance state, and so forth. Instead, they advance lies, sow discord, damage the reputation of the United States, and discredit themselves.

24 comments:

If you are arguing that the official story line is completely believable, (that Bush is not someone who can be blamed for 9/11) Colleen Rowley had something relevant to say about that, don't you think?

Remember Colleen - the FBI agent who was on the cover of Time magazine for wondering why her bosses would not let her investigations into 9/11 terrorism proceed according to protocol? Who said (I quote loosely by memory here) "It was as if they worked for the enemy"?

The facts are that the Bush family had a long personal and business relationship with the Saudi royals (not to mention the Bin Laden family).

And members of the Saudi royal family were channeling funding monies to terrorist groups, including agents inside the U.S.

And at some point, George Bush directed that investigations involving the Saudi royals was off-limits, leading to the resignation of John O'Neill, Chief of the FBI counter terrorism unit.

So, I would say that there are relevant unanswered questions about the role of George Bush, the FBI and the CIA that are not "ridiculous" and "preposterous".

But these questions get lost in the all-too-easy rush to dismiss any questions about 9/11 as "trutherism" conspiracy theories - most of which are indeed preposterous and ridiculous.

The problem is that it is a very tangled web indeed which has to be unraveled to understand the full background of 9/11. One could spend hundreds of hours reading material on the subject. I recommend www.historycommons.org as perhaps the best repository of referenced information on the topic.

Just listened to one these people on the Kitchener radio station, bringing up Bush in Florida, WTC 7 collapsing, Rumsfeld mentioned a "missile" hitting the Pentagon despite evidence to the contrary and that the fourth plane was shot down.

There are more holes in his theories than the holes that he claims are in the "official" story.

Just listened to one these people on the Kitchener radio station, bringing up Bush in Florida, WTC 7 collapsing, Rumsfeld mentioned a "missile" hitting the Pentagon despite evidence to the contrary and that the fourth plane was shot down.

There are more holes in his theories than the holes that he claims are in the "official" story.

I clicked your link "elaborate and preposterous scenarios," and before that, I had never realized that the guy who did those "studies" saying that the Flight 93 hijackers could not have used cell phones (Dewdney), was the same guy from the Mathematical Recreations column from SciAm back when I subscribed to that.

Dr. Shallit, Are you saying that Creationists don't ask interesting (and sometimes challenging) questions about evolution? Or did you just toss that out because you didn't think that any of your readers would challenge you?

Yes, Oort Cloud, that's exactly what I'm saying. If you look at the kinds of questions creationist typically ask (e.g., "If we descended from monkeys why are there still monkeys") you nearly always find that they have absolutely nothing to do with what evolutionary biologists actually study. They don't even know the issues.

What's that, Jeffrey? You'll be telling us next that if someone asks a genealogist "If I am descended from my grandmother why does my grandmother still exist?", then that means they aren't really engaging with the interesting problems that working genealogists face.

If you really believe that that ridiculous question typifies the question of the leading challengers of Darwinian theory...

Except Henry Morris used that argument in "Many Infallible Proofs."

I have read dozens of creationist books. They're either too ignorant to know they're ignorant, or they're pathological liars.

Remember when Ray Comfort described Darwinism thusly: Darwin wrote that male humans evolvwd separately from female humans, until after millions of years, by blind chance, they happened to evolve sex organs that fit together?

"Why do monkeys still exist?" isn't the dumbest argument against evolution. I've read dozens of creationist books. There is no dumbest. It's like falling into a black hole: you never really reach the singularity.

Diogenes: I wonder why you have read many creationist books. Do you find it entertaining, or it is because you want to see what the limits of idiocy can be? I am just curious, because, personally, I get upset.

The Ray Comfort beliefs remind me Aristophanes: in one of his comedies he claims that, long time ago, there was a single sex and that only later did men and women appear. Of course, without knowing it, Aristophanes turned out to be right, but the banana man has no chance of ever being correct.

I am no Truther. However, I'm puzzled by the vitriol aimed at respected academics. Does A.K. Dewdney, for example, have a history of being stupid or being a liar? Not that I know of. Does he have something to gain by espousing his theories? No, in fact he has a lot to lose.

On the other side of the argument, mainly, is the US government, an institution that if anthropomorphized would surely be diagnosed as a sociopath and pathological liar. The list of lies is long and horrific. Would they lie about WMD and proceed to murder tens of thousands? Yes, they would.

Once again, I am not a Truther. But I think it would be folly to dismiss a theory as preposterous just because the US government says otherwise.

But I think it would be folly to dismiss a theory as preposterous just because the US government says otherwise.

Who is dismissing it "just because the US government says otherwise"?

We dismiss preposterous theories because (a) there is no evidence for them (b) they require an unbelievably massive conspiracy theory (c) they do not provide any reasonable motivation for the acts and (d) serious investigative journalists, such as Lawrence Wright, have provided a comprehensive picture of the terrorists, and their acts and motivations.

The 9/11 Truth movement is interesting from the point of view of interpreting history.

There was another world power millenia ago which had a damaging event that destroyed many public buildings and beautiful homes in its most powerful city. This was the burning of Rome on 19 July 64 CE. Emperor Nero blamed the Christians for this attack. History (written by the Christians) blamed Nero.

Interestingly enough, there was another event in 70 CE, the sacking of Jerusalem by future emperor Titus.

It makes me ask the question: Was the Great Fire of Rome the equivalent of 911 for Rome? And was the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE the equivalent retribution for that event?

Oort Cloud, could you provide an example of an interesting/challenging question about evolution posed by a creationist?

There is a strong consensus among those of us who understand evolution that the creationists are largely uneducated of the facts, and I'd wager that this consensus includes Richard Dawkins. As a result we tend to be (justifiably) dismissive of claims to the contrary.

But putting all that aside: if you wish to challenge the assertion that creationists do not ask interesting questions simply provide an example! But keep in mind it is possible that what you find interesting is utterly boring to a competent biologist.